tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 15 08:32:48 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Grammar Highlight Each Day: purpose clause
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Grammar Highlight Each Day: purpose clause
- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 11:31:05 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
> A purely stylistic comment: In short sentences with a
> subordinate {-meH} clause, especially when the subject of
> both clauses is the same, I think it sounds better - and
> a bit more Okrandian - to put the subject in the second
> (main) clause:
> peHruS wrote:
> : Ha'DIbaH pe'meH ghot, taj lo'.
> : In order to cut the meat, the person uses a knife.
> Literally: "In order for the person to cut the meat, s/he
> uses a knife."
> Ha'DIbaH pe'meH taj lo' ghot.
> The person uses a knife to cut the meat.
As a stylistic comment, I completely disagree. It is rather
rare when I find myself siding with peHruS and challenging
voragh, but I guess this just proves that Klingon really is
a language and style really is an issue rather than having
it simply be a code you could do well by learning all the
rules.
I'm pretty sure that Okrand tends to put the noun with the
first verb except when the purpose clause is modifying a
noun and not a verb. Then the noun follows the two {-meH}
verbs. I think that's where the "Okrandian sounding" thing
came from. It's like the pair of {-bogh} clauses in {Qoy
qeylIS puqloD} -- which I believe uses the wrong
conjunction, but it fits the meter of the song so well. Two
verbs modify one noun and get a conjunction between them
and the noun follows the second verb. But this "sound"
doesn't carry over to this {-meH}-verb-modifying-the-main-
verb-with-the-same-subject-for-both-verbs kind of grammar.
When I see {Ha'DIbaH pe'meH taj lo' ghot,} I translate that
as "The person used the meat-cutting knife." If I wanted to
say, "The person used the knife to cut meat," I'd say
{Ha'DIbaH pe'meH ghot taj lo'.}
> : loD chopmeH targh, Ho'Du' lo'.
> : In order for the dog* to bite the man, it uses teeth.
> loD chopmeH Ho'Du' lo' targh.
> The targ uses (its) teeth to bite the man.
"The targ uses the man-biting teeth." I definitely prefer
peHruS's version.
> : be' luqIpmeH puqpu', naQmey lo'.
> : The child uses a stick to hit the woman. [sic!]
> Literally: "In order for the children to hit the woman,
> they use sticks."
Yep. Plural puq.
> be' luqIpmeH naQmey lo' puqpu'.
> The children use sticks to hit the woman.
Again, "The children use the woman-hitting sticks." The
original version is a lot clearer.
> Hmm... Notice how Klingon and English word orders are
> mirror images of each other. Okrand would be pleased!
> Since the clauses are short with no change in subject,
> the reader can easily keep them both in mind without
> getting confused.
Except, of course, by the unnecessary ambiguity of whether
the {-meH} clause is modifying the verb or the direct
object of {lo'}. You introduce this ambiguity where it is
not needed. The original word order makes this ambiguity a
lot less likely, since to misrepresent it, you'd have to
come up with something like, "They used the
in-order-that-the-children-hit-the-woman sticks." That
sounds a lot less likely than "The children used the
woman-hitting sticks," or more literally, "The children
used the in-order-that-the-woman-is-hit sticks." This is a
common Klingon construction.
If you want to be really clear, Okrand makes it clear in
TKD that it is okay to repeat the subject. Despite the
usual focus on concise speech, Okrand makes it explicitly
clear that Klingons do not consider it to be stylistically
bad to repeat the subject.
Meanwhile, if you are not going to repeat a subject or
object, it makes sense to tell people what you are talking
about sooner rather than later. Think about English
sentences like, "He went to the store and then John went
home." Doesn't that sound better as, "John went to the
store and then he went home."? It makes no more sense to
withhold the identification of a subject until after the
second verb in Klingon, unless there is a grammatical
reason for that.
There is such a grammatical reason in examples like:
nIv Suvta'bogh 'ej Qapta'bogh SuvwI'.
The warrior who has fought and won is superior.
pe'meH 'ej DuQmeH taj HInob.
Give me the cutting and stabbing knife.
Basically, I think that in examples where there were
multiple dependent verbs that are peers in grammatical
function, applying to the same noun which would follow such
a verb were it a single verb, in that case, Okrand
typically groups the verbs and puts the noun afterward
rather than split the two verbs with the noun. Otherwise,
examples are really rare of Okrand putting a noun behind
the second verb when the two verbs share the same subject.
I doubt there is such an example.
I'm not sure there is an example backing up my own
stylistic preference, for that matter. The only sure thing
is that you can repeat the noun. Okrand says so right there
in TKD. I personally like putting the noun after the first
verb in cases such as those in this original example. It's
clearer. The noun in question is identified sooner and
there's less ambiguity over whether the purpose clause is
applying itself to the noun or the verb.
> OTOH if the {-meH} clause is long and complicated - or
> there are several dependent clauses linked in a long,
> complex sentence - then I would probably keep the subject
> with its {-meH} clause in the interest of clarity.
> YMMV.
It did.
> --
> Voragh
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
I'm sure I'll regret writing this. I always do when I write
in English.
SarrIS.